New Bailiff Case - E.on UK Plc v Safe Hosts Internet LLP

A_Geordie

A very recent High Court decision that may be of interest to this forum.

BAILII Link: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2026/1071.html&query=(title:(+E.on+))+AND+(title:(+UK+))

The High Court Enforcement Officer seized goods at the judgment debtor's address, but some of those goods belonged to a third party. One of the issues to be decided was where the burden of proof lay if there is a challenge to the goods.

The court identified two scenarios for the burden of proof:

(1) Where there was any resistance or objection to the seizure of the goods, the HCEO has the burden of proving that the debtor had an interest/ownership in the goods.

(2) Where the seizure was peaceful i.e. there was no one at the address and the goods were seized without resistance or objection, the burden of proof rest with the third party claiming ownership/right to possession of the seized goods.

Critically (and a lot of bailiffs like to argue this point to justify seizure), the court rejected the HCEO's argument that they only need to have a reasonable belief that the debtor either has an interest or is the owner of the goods in order to seize them. To quote the judge:

I however do not agree with Mr Sharghy, if he was indeed submitting this, that in order to effect a seizure so as to obtain some property right the HCEO only requires a reasonable belief that the judgment debtor has an interest in (or is the owner of) the seized goods.

It seems to me that that may be relevant to a damages or compensation claim under the wording of the statutory provisions (see especially Paragraphs 63-65 of Schedule 12) but it does not seem to me that it affects questions of ownership or possession or rights to seize. In principle, the HCEO can only do what the writ of control allows, that is to seize goods in which the judgment debtor has an interest. If the judgment debtor has no interest in them, it does not seem to me that the HCEO can in some way or other invoke the provisions of the legislation to affect the questions of who is to turn out to actually be the owner and be entitled to the goods or, indeed, whether the HCEO had a right to seize them in the first place.

Coupon-mad

Interesting case; thankyou again for keeping a beady eye out for these.

Car1980

Excellent. About time somebody took action against their modus operandi of seize everything and let them argue about it later.

"Reasonable belief" isn't even an actual thing on the ground. They just take what they can.